belorn

Rifles are problematic as a single category since that involves hunting rifles. We can look at machine guns as a category that is neither rifle or handgun, and with limited use in hunting.

That said, the death rate of machine gun ownership may still be lower than handgun ownership, with a possible explanation being that it is easier to buy a handgun compared to a machine gun. A further jump into the data would then explore who are the buyer demographic of a handgun compared to a machine gun, and how machine guns compare to handguns in locations where both has similar restrictions on those who buy them.

An other avenue to explore would be to look at purchases of ammunition to determine which guns are actually in use for non-murder purposes. Hunting ammunition for example may show a much more common use than guns used for non-hunting purposes, and thus have a lower murder rate per shot. Machine guns and handguns might share a much more similar profile in that regard, possible normalized towards how much ammunition each use in a target range.

Lets look at this specific situation. Was there regulation that dictate/encourage screening and education for organizations that work with children? How many adults were there in the organization and on activities with this scout leader? How much involvement had parents? Was there any adult in the children environment that was trained to detect CSA, for example school personal?

It is technical possible that in small villages there is only a single Boy Scout leader and no other adults, who then spend a lot of time alone with children. In my experience however, after school activities involving children also generally involve several adults. That makes it a major structural issue among the adults if they fail to detect a problem like hundreds of victims, and the more common remedy would be to train people, apply some form of screening, and change routines that limit risk and encourage reporting in case of inappropriate behavior.

In addition, having trained people that regular meet and talk to children can help detect situations even when they happen in peoples home, like having school employees training in detecting signs of CSA.

When we say that handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles, is that normalized towards ownership?

Data and statistics is as always dependent on how and what you measure.

People who look at this from a US political perspective is going to get a lot of misunderstanding unless one look into the specifics that are the Swedish political system and laws.

The party in question is a small local government party looking to primary get seats in their local government, but with aspiration to get into national politics under a special rule that provide a single seat (1 out of 349) in parliament if the party get enough votes in a local election. The politician in question has made some comments about national immigration policy during debates, which local government has no power over, and which is what the label ethnonationalist is exclusively based on. Last election they got 7 700 votes, and they would need around 20 000 votes to get that one parliament seat.

The specific quote in question has a bunch of context. The background was a parliamentary proposition that suggest that immigrants that are on subsidy programs should be required to do some social work as part of the integration process. The opposition disagreed, arguing that this would enable the government to exploit immigrants as free labor, and that is when this politician commented that if they want subsidy but refuse to work then they should return back to their home country (often translated as deported, which is not completely wrong translation but lacks context).

The discussion around deportation from Sweden is also very different from the political discussion in US. Sweden has been deporting people for about 100 years if a person lacks permission to stay in the country, and there is no party that is advocating to stop this. What is debated is the definition used in the exception for unsafe home country, and a bit about what specific circumstances a permission to stay in the country can be withdrawn. Except for the above mentioned parliamentary proposition, I do not know of any political statements that Örebro party or their leader has said on those issues.

For non-Swedes, all the links with the domain "bra.se" is the government department for prevention of crime, and as part of that role has been given the objective from the government to collect crime statistic. They provide data, conclusions and advice the government on how to effectively combat crime. They also have direct access to police and court databases in order to achieve their objectives.

They are the official source for crime statistics in Sweden.

For scuba diving you will want to have a house for the camera regardless of brand. It not only lower the risk of damages, but it is also more explicitly designed for depth without needing to compromising for non-divers.

That said, GoPro is not the best for low light environments, and the battery is a bit temperature sensitive, both which can be an issue when diving.

ICANN policy is very different for country code TLD and generic TLD. Every country (with minor exceptions) decide over their own TLD and thus decide whatever rules they want. It is explicitly a hands off approach in their management of the TLD's.

Generic TLD are different. ICANN dictate to different degree each generic TLD, and is also the one that give accreditation to registrars. ICANN has given different companies the role of operating and handling databases and registration systems, like Verisign with .com, but it is still ICANN that dictate policy. ICANN could decide tomorrow that Verisign is no longer suitable to run the operation of generic TLD's and thus move it to a company located in a different country.

Moving the operations of generic domains to a less US-centric location is not a new idea, same with the legal locations of the organizations that are ICANN and IANA. As I understand it, they are mostly located in USA as a matter of history.

The ultimate end game if too many countries would pull at the unified single root that is the domain name system and ip address space, would be a split root. Different countries would resolve .com to different places, and packages going to one server will be going to an other, and people on one side will not be able to communicate with people on the other side since packages would no longer be globally routeable.

In concept, IANA and the group of global stakeholders could move the whole thing to a different country if US becomes too much trouble.

Encouraging people to eat more from aquafarming is better for the environment. Getting people to change culture and diet is never going to be easy, and the difficulty of getting people to eat more food from the ocean or plants will likely be very similar.

It is time to set a zero-fossil fuels goal in the grid, similar to how we are banning the sale of new ICE in cars. I would say a complete stop in EU for construction of new grid sized fossil fueled power plants by 2030, and a stop of producing energy in the grid using fossil fuels in 2035.

This should be supported by both those that advocate nuclear and those advocating renewables. Those that do advocate for a grid with renewables that are supported with a reserve energy fleet of fossil fueled power plants, like the oil power plant in south of Sweden, will just have to find an alternative. If that alternative is cheaper, faster and more attractive than nuclear then the choice is obvious, and if its not then fossil fuels are still not an option. This include using bio fuels produced with artificial fertilizers since that process currently uses natural gas (which is why people are predicting a food shortage and famine as a result of the war in Iran).

If you judge the political views of a party on how they vote (i.e. their actions), then the result will be a mess. Political parties vote in blocks and alliances, with negotiations and give-and-take. They regularly vote against their own interests if their negotiations means getting their own politics through. One has to look at both what they say and what they do, in order to understand why they voted one way or an other.

There have been recently in Sweden a discussion around party voting and block voting. In concept, every politician could vote independently based on their own views and opinions, but as a practical matter they vote according to party politics. Some has now voiced that this should be mandated according to election result, while others want to keep the current system where elected has a choice to ignore party politics and be independent after the election. The reason this has become an issue is that recent elections has been very close with only a few seats difference between the blocks, thus independent (called "wilds") representatives has the ability to overturn votes when the blocks artificial maintains the relative balances between each other.

Last, if we look at the actions, then guess how the green party voted when it came to construction of new thermal power plants in south of Sweden.

What does the German Green Party say in their own political platform today about the use of thermal power plants? Are they in favor of them, to be used to balance the grid when renewable energy fails to meet demand, or are they against the construction and continued use?

I know what the Swedish green party has on their platform, open to be read at any time on their website or in paper materials, or heard by their political representatives. Their position is that thermal power plants are critical to the energy grid in order to enable renewable energy and keeping costs down. They wish to use either bio fuels or green hydrogen to fuel those power plants.

The issue I got with that plan is that current thermal power plants in practice do not use exclusively bio fuels or green hydrogen, and that the environmental science around bio fuels are poor at best and full of green washing and practices that are extremely bad for the environment. The costs of bio fuels and green hydrogen has also demonstrated to be massively expensive, making the cost of nuclear cheap in comparison.

My views of the green will change when/if the green drops their support of thermal power plants, and their overwhelming dependency of using biofuels produced from corn as a way to reduce emissions. Biofuels need to be produced without using artificial fertilizers (natural gas), and without burning down forests to make space for the farming. It also need to be cheaper than nuclear, which disqualify green hydrogen as it is produced, stored and handled currently. Carbon capture and artificial fuels are disqualified on the same point, being overwhelming more expensive than nuclear.

As an anecdote, the Swedish green party leader and a right wing party had a political debate during last election. The Right wing party wanted to demolish an oil fueled thermal power plant that is currently operated in south of Sweden, and replace with new nuclear power plant. Paraphrasing what the green party leader said: "Thermal power plants are a natural part of the Swedish grid, and nuclear energy is way to expensive. We need those plants to keep the grid stable and prices low."

The biggest difference is the role of ICANN and their willingness to regulate the management of a TLD. With ccTLD they have an official policy to be hands off and not dictate what a country will do with their top level domain. If the US government would start to mess with Verisign and how the registry handles domain, then ICANN is within their own policy to just move it somewhere else.

The government of Montenegro could, just like many other ccTLD, decide tomorrow that every registrant must be a citizen of Montenegro. Many countries do this today, and it is no big deal because it is the country of and ccTLD that dictate how their domains should be operated. They can raise prices by a factor of 100 if they wanted, decide on some form of ID for registration, or dictate that you must have a company located in the country. ICANN has no objection to any of that.

I would recommend a registrar that would explain to the customer why they would not want a .me domain for anything critical unless the person lives in Montenegro and trust the Government of Montenegro to maintain a good and trust worthy registry.

Otherwise just use which ever registrar is cheapest and who you think will handle any quirks or shenanigans that registries may do to domains you own, and which own system and processes hold high enough standard for you.

The Golden Age of Piracy lasted between 1650s and the 1730s, and it involved most of the oceans and most ocean trading nations.

Board or sink anyone who don't surrender to the extortion. Flags only work if nations respect them, and nations that are willing to pirate ships is very unlikely to respect flags.

The Hormuz strait is now basically the same as coast of Somalia, except that now the pirates has missiles, rockets and torpedoes.

When visiting Egypt, the hotel took control of all the guests passport and only returned them at departure date. It is not the same as work relation, obviously, but I wonder how common that practice is in other tourist destinations.

The distinction is very much blurred, and there is much more profitable way to use data than getting people to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

Companies can use it to determine voting patters and sell that to interested political parties. Government are made from political parties and can steer money to those parties, thus the data can now be sold indirectly to the government.

Companies can use it to indirectly target competitors through their customers. Creating a monopoly is much more profitable than just selling more products. Gaining favors with political parties in the above strategy can also help here.

Companies can sell data to governments of other countries. Just because your own government has laws that forbids it, it doesn't mean other countries has the same laws or will treat the citizens of your country as their own. Trade like this can also occur in multiple steps. Company sell data to country A, and country A shares/sells it to your own government. Your own government might finds this preferable to buy it directly as laws may not apply to data shared/bought, even if that data is about their own citizens.

Selling personal data to the government is profitable, but there are also other interested parties. People in legal disputes may want information about the other side, or the juries, or even the judge. Companies that want to do industry espionage would want to buy information about other companies employees. Criminal organizations very much like to buy information about vulnerable people like the elderly. Again, the data doesn't need to be sold directly but can go through many hands until it finally reach the most scummy buyers, and the money will slowly trickle upwards to the seller.

As long as someone collects the data and is willing to sell it to someone, sooner or later it will be sold/leaked to someone who shouldn't have it. That is the fundamental issue with companies collecting personal information.

The speed sign detection can be a bit funny at times. Mine often read signs that are for roads next to the one I'm driving, which occasionally include train tracks. Seeing a maximum speed that is 200 km/h is a bit funny, through less so when the camera catches a small road parallel with the highway with speeds that's 1/4th that of the highway. If the cruise control would follow those, the first one would be very illegal and the second one quite dangerous and possibly illegal if it got stuck like that. It also has detected a 357 km/h (or around that) while driving in the city, possibly by random patterns from a shop's street window.

The lane assist can also become confused by shadows created by a fence next to the road when the sun is just slightly above the horizon. The car thought I was driving between two roads and tried to steer me to the side, but it was a single lane highway. That was the last time I had it enabled.

This seems fairly common in most countries, and I would guess the reason is for practical reasons. When police are out they have a fairly high probability to stumble onto more than just the specifics things they was sent out to do, and so they need to have access to check up people and vehicles.

What my country do (and others?) is to keep a strict records of every lookup, with different levels of auditor, some which checks every record in a shallow way and some which do random sampling with more deep checks. The punishment for misuse of the database is also fairly harsh.

The deceptive aspect is the stronger part of the objection. Banning any and all political messages in Debian packages would go too far and I doubt the community would support it. People and in extension developers, can be quite political active and will put some of that into their works. I am sure (as in I don't need to verify) that the pride flag is somewhere in Debian right now, in some package, and banning it would cause much more conflict than allowing it to remain where it is. The problem really only exist if people would have it shoved into their faces through deception.

An other example of political message is when projects redirect donations to a cause. Should projects be banned from having a "donate to Ukraine" somewhere in a program, maybe with a Ukraine flag next to it?

The simple solution that should make everyone happy is to simply document it. That way it is no longer a hidden behavior, and the Debian maintainer could even do that as a patch without the help of upstream.

You lack basic knowledge of how Sweden work and seem to construct a straw man arguments based on that lack of knowledge.

In Sweden everyone must by law go through basic education as children, and all education is free, including higher education. The government get no profits from schools as there is no fees for the government to collect. It is all paid through taxes. Your are using that "dumb-think" of yours, assuming that immigration from countries that does not provide basic education for all their citizens will have the same level of education as people from countries that do.

Which can also be explained with regular budget pressure from neoliberal fiscal hawks. I dont know the swedish specifics.

You clearly do not understand how Sweden operate or how local government functions, are clearly too lazy to look it up. The budget for municipalities primarily comes from local taxes, paid by citizens that live in that region. There are a national budget posts that get distributed between municipalities, but they only cover some parts of the local budget. Regions with a lot of high income and high tax paying citizens will have more money to spend than regions with a lot of citizens that are unemployed and on welfare.

And naturally I can give you links to Swedish articles that also direct you to the research study and the government study, in Swedish. https://frihetsnytt.se/invandringens-pris-vad-farska-studien...

1/3 of refugees never becomes economical self-sufficient. That is basic statistical fact. If you don't like the statistics you can pretend that math is racism or something dishonest like that. The plain fact is that taking in refugees has costed Sweden money, and the more refugees that comes in the higher the cost is. The math doesn't say if the cost isn't morally worth it, or if refugees children or children children will some day repay the cost, or if then it is worth to pay a cost now for a possible profit in the future that we don't know. All the math say is that there is a cost per person and year from taking in refugees that will not be repaid by those refugees.

Calling it a political startup is not that unfair.

I would add that in practice it is even less significant that one may think. Parties for local government has an incentive to make loud declaration of national policy in order to present themselves as more legitimate compared to national political parties. However, local government do not have any actually power to implement such policies. Local government decide things like "should we build a new public bath house", or "should we create a local investigation if the that one large road through the city should a speed limit or 30 instead of 40". In terms of practical immigration policy, what a local government control is things like encouraging access to housing, specific integration initiatives that is local to that region, and other details for when immigrants arrive to that specific municipality. In this case we are talking about a municipality the size of 160 000 people.

Thus this funding may increase the probability that they will get more than the 5 seats out of 65 that exist in Örebro County Council, which they got from a total of 7000 votes in the latest election. If they manage to get 12% of the 160 000 votes, they will also get one bonus seat in the parliament which is a special rule in the Swedish election system. That single seat out of 350 could in theory do some harm if the election results happens to also be very close between the two blocks of left and right wing parties.

There are special ethical investment funds with policies like no military manufacturers, no fossil fuel producers, and so on. They will generally pay less, have higher management costs, but they do exists. You do have a choose in which funds and stock options you buy, including which pension funds you invest in.

A bank account is not a legal requirement in Sweden, which I know for a fact since I know a person in Sweden who do not have one. The agreements between the government and some banks is that banks must accept customers who ask for a bank account. They can't however force a person to go into a contract with a private bank against their will.

I will give you that it is a more significant choice to choose which companies one want to invest ones savings on, in contrast to spending a few bucks on a vpn. I would however argue that the moral impact from the amount of money invested in funds and pension plans are more important then the choice of a VPN, thus hold a bigger ethical question.

There was a study done in Sweden on the economics of immigration during the large immigration crisis of 2015, and the result was a significant net-negative of 7 800 € per person per year. Taking in a large number of refugees with significant lower education and overall wealth compared to existing populations, with a welfare and healthcare system that Sweden has, cost significant more than what it produce in increased taxes.

There is the concept of social dumping where municipalities try to get immigrants on welfare to move to other municipalities in order to reduce costs and balance the budget, and those other municipalities are now complaining loudly that their budgets have major deficits because of this strategy. Schools also complain about this issue since a large influx of low-income citizens put an increase budget costs without any increase in tax revenue, meaning higher costs and fewer teachers per student.

A more recent study in 2025, ordered by the government, calculated that the cost per refugee today to be around 2 500€ per year per person, while work related immigration gave a positive benefit of 4 800€ per year per person. This report however do not account for increase crime, integration initiatives, increased cost to the education system, health care and other things.

It should also be mentioned that only about 1/3 of refugees ever becomes economical self-sufficient.

Parties get goverment funding based on election result, with a minimum floor of 2.5% votes in national elections. This party is way too small for that, and is primarily focused on local election.

We can easier look at conclusion people make about banks and stock options. Will people invest money into index fonds and pension fonds if those fonds invest money into companies that produce and sell weapons to abhorred brutal dictators? What about buying stocks from telecommunication producers who operate in abhorred brutal dictatorships and who helps those dictators to control their population?

To add to the context. The founder of the was the chairman for the youth organization of Vänsterpartiet (English name: The left party), the furthest left party in the Swedish parliament, and he recruited members primarily from the same organization when he was kicked out. The reason he got kicked out was that he was seen praising the Revolutionary Front, a far-left extremist political and militant network in Sweden.

It should be added that the area where they are active is in the local government of Örebro Municipality, a place with a total population of 160,143 people. Looking at the political leanings of parties for a small local government with the lens of national parties might not give a very clear picture. Their strategy is also directed toward local voters, not national voters, through a strategy called the 12% line.

I remember a discussion I had with a English teacher from UK who immigrated to Sweden during the 1990s. They said that in UK, when a government employee would visit a house regarding dept or some other problem, they would bring a large police escort and then they and the neighbourhood would had a big brawl that generally ended with the police winning and then most of the participants would go to the pub. It was just how things worked. The guy were majorly surprised that in Sweden, the government employee could just knock on the door and talk to the person with no police and no brawl.

I would assume that if attacking emergency services is the norm in Northern Ireland, so is police escorts of emergency services. That is not the norm in Sweden, through it has become the norm for certain regions where emergency services no longer feel safe going on an emergency call. The downside is that if the police is delayed, so is the emergency service, and naturally the quality of emergency service is reduce in those locations which some people say is a form of discrimination.

There aren't even 100 000 Somalians living in Sweden, so it would be quite hard to deport 100 000 social welfare-Somalis. People born in Somalia is the 7th largest group of immigrants, and makes up for the largest group if we only look at African nations.

The real number is around half, 67000.

Now if we assume social welfare-Somalis is a derogatory generalization of all kind of immigrates, including non-Somalis, then it is likely to be more than 100 000 immigrants that is on social welfare. They just won't all be Somalis, or even be the majority of them.